Bingham v. Roosevelt City

Utah Supreme Court

2010 UT 37, 235 P.3d 730

     In takings claims filed under either the State or Federal Constitutions, the fundamental question is whether the thing taken qualifies as “property” within the meaning of the constitutional provisions. Takings claims may be dismissed, even though the challenged action causes economic harm, because the harm was not tied to a protectible property interest, or a reasonable expectation of a property right.

     Every person has a right to use his or her own property, as long as the use does not invade the rights of others.  The right to hold, use, and enjoy property is by the collective consent of society, as represented by society’s laws.  The law, within its proper limits, may impose controls on the use and enjoyment of property when necessary to protect the common welfare.

Full Text of Bingham v. Roosevelt City

RETURN to Takings Cases

Link to Appellate Decisions Section